You see an answer there right? Don't align with the useless eaters! Align with the intelligent, go "Ghandi"! Give them no reason to send their Storm
Troopers the way of you and your like minded group! And plant a garden!

Who is the bigger threat to your safety? A terrorist or someone whose brain thinks like the person apologizing to the Imam?......

That is the best example of what I think is the underlying problem preventing a proper response to the murdering Islamic radicals...the fact liberals
don't even understand the religion AND in their self-appointed eliteness, won't even listen to the experts who could explain it to them.

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. These are two people that I respect immensely, and each of them have deep concerns about Islam.

There is a conflict of culture between Western nations and Islam that people are not taking seriously enough. Politically, I've moved further from
the left due to a lot of troubling things I'm seeing from that side of the political spectrum lately--I am pro critical thinking, and I believe that
some in the progressive community--especially institutions of higher education--have completely lost their way in this sense.

But is it more or less helpful than sticking your fingers in your ears because you're so afraid of being labelled a racist?

The problem with sticking your fingers in your ears is that you will only ever hear your own side of the story, you will only let yourself be exposed
to the things that confirm your own prejudiced worldview.

There is a cold, hard, unavoidable truth - there is a significant group of people who agree with an interpretation of Islam that justifies what they
are doing.

There is also, however, a warm, encouraging truth - there is an even larger group of people who agree with an interpretation of Islam that denounces
and rejects what the bad guys are doing.

Sticking your fingers in your ears will only ever help one of those groups, and it's not the group we want. You are, through your refusal to address
it, giving tacit support and acceptance to terrorists and their ideology.

Take your fingers out of your ears. Don't be so afraid of being part of the solution that you make yourself part of the problem.

My take on it is that while ISIS might have an overarching goal of establishing a caliphate, the acts of terrorism are not a direct means to that
end.

Why terrorism? I believe that there are a few motivations but two primary:

1. It's a recruitment tool. It's meant to demonstrate their reach and their resolve. To show these jihadists striking out at the West successfully.

2. I believe it's intended to provoke a particular response and this is what many people mean and most should when they say, "you're playing right
into their hands." Think beyond the superficial reason which would be to "provoke fear." They're trying to factionalize Western populations and
provoke continued military response.

They want nothing more than non-Muslims to turn on their Muslim countrymen because it rallies people to their cause. And like a lot of far-right
zealots, they are trying very hard to orchestrate an all out holy war.

Mahatma Gandhi was once declared a terrorist. And a rare British Parliament paper declaring the Father of Nation a terrorist in 1932, was
sold for a pathetic sum of just £260 yesterday at an auction in London.

Just wake me up once you're willing to look at 15 years of failed policies. More blind actionism simply wont cut it.

pretending that love will solve it is what is actually playing right into the terrorist’s hands.

It worked out for Ghandi though.

I criticize these failed policies all of the time. The same globalists people that brought us those failed policies are the ones telling us we need
to break down borders, accept huge amounts of "refugees" and shout about people being Islamophobic.

Ghandi was successful because the British were afraid of the might of the Indian people had they killed or imprisoned him.

It worked because the British did not seek total annihilation of the Indian people, unlike Isis.

Here are some Ghandi quotes for you."I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence,"

"..Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to
defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor." - M.K. Gandhi, The Doctrine of
the Sword.

"..He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing
with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must
rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully ..."

"...A man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward.

Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to
offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me,
guard against such an unmanly belief.

Self-defence ... is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation."

I included all of these on a thread I did that was relevant to this one.

It’s time to wake up. Yes extremist rhetoric from all sides should be condemned. But ignoring the problem of Islamic terrorism and pretending that
love will solve it is what is actually playing right into the terrorist’s hands.

I thought ignoring western foriegn policy and Gulf State political ideologies along with Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Israel's geopolitical practice was
playing right into the terrorist hands.

Normal people who just want to be safe are being called racist or cowards, and they are starting to get fed up. These people aren’t racist, they
aren’t Islamaphobes; they just want action taken to deal with the problem. Many did things like vote for Brexit, and all of the know it all wealthy
people and people in the media told them how terrible they were for doing this. They are being pushed further and further into the corner. And when
they are at their final straw, you know who will be there to help them; the actual racists. And that’s when the real bloodbath will occur.

In fact, it's so cartoon:

Everytime I hear this, I have to ask myself “Are people really this stupid?”

My take on it is that while ISIS might have an overarching goal of establishing a caliphate, the acts of terrorism are not a direct means to that
end.

Why terrorism? I believe that there are a few motivations but two primary:

1. It's a recruitment tool. It's meant to demonstrate their reach and their resolve. To show these jihadists striking out at the West successfully.

2. I believe it's intended to provoke a particular response and this is what many people mean and most should when they say, "you're playing right
into their hands." Think beyond the superficial reason which would be to "provoke fear." They're trying to factionalize Western populations and
provoke continued military response.

They want nothing more than non-Muslims to turn on their Muslim countrymen because it rallies people to their cause. And like a lot of far-right
zealots, they are trying very hard to orchestrate an all out holy war.

The globalists such as Merkel are also seeking this holy war.

How else to you explain that their ideals of eliminating national borders coincides with Isis's ideal?

Most people will not go for holy war. But when they are told over and over agian that they are cowards and racist for worrying about Islamic terror,
they shift ever closer to the far right zealots you fear so much.

The way to stop both Isis and the far right zealots is to be honest about Islamic terror, and take steps to defeat it.

How is a military response automatically divide Muslims from the rest of us? Is your logic really so simple as "Isis wants us to attack them.
Therefore, we will do the opposite, not attack them, welcome them in, and shame anyone who has a problem with it. That will defeat them!"

That is insane.

I stand by the OP, people calling anyone racist or a coward that has any worry of Islamic extremist, or people whose first concern is not stopping
terror but not hurting Muslims feelings are exactly what Isis wants.

The next step in this thing is for retaliatory events to start playing into the drama.

By the way in my opinion the armed troops on patrol in force around London were to guard against retaliation actions by the citizens. That would be a
real wake up call for the Londoners had they flipped out.

Dude its almost like some James Bound where world leaders are being blackmailed or otherwise strong armed by some Ice Man figure i.e. our leaders have
already been briefed by ********* that over 500 operatives are spread out over the earth with small yield nuke weapons........all the public stuff is
just so the sheep get their minds right.

Ah yes. More of "Isis are just great honorable people and the west has driven them to this! We need to thank them for killing people in Western
countries so that we can atone for a ways!!!"

In case you were wondering, the OP was written especially for your ilk.

I criticize western foreign policy all of the time. So what, because these polices, which most people in the west are against (hence Bernie and trump
having so much support who wanted to end Obama and Bushs regime change war) they just have to take their medicine aand they have no right to be
concerned with Islamic extremism. They have to allow immigration of millions of unvetted refugees?

They should be mocked as racist for expressing these concerns?

I love the arrogance of your type, the west is responsible for all evil people.

I suppose the west also is responsible for Boko Haram taking child brides.

The west also forced isis to kill shias all around the world.

In fact, when Islamic factions were fight centuries before the US was formed, it was still the Us fault, right?

It is so funny that you claim to criticize western powers geopolitical decisions, yet you side with them on wanting unfettered immigration and total
shaming of anyone with a fear of Islamic terror.

Truly a soldier for the global elites; one who thinks they dislike them but work with diligence to help them achieve their goals.

The breakdown of borders is good for western style commerce infusion and
swinging culture everywhere.

As burdman pointed out yet another handler objective through kate perry,
no walls, no borders coexist yada yada. Glad he sees this. Thanks for speaking up on this burdman.

Ticket sales and a guarded palace in every continent is what katy is thinking about. She would get knighthood for being a good tool, were she a male,
and she doesn't have a clue, or does she, as to what she is serving.

She does now.

What the globalist intend to gain from a world state is the elimination of God, ultimately, replaced with a tacky science fair featuring quantum
swinging, transgender exhibits, the miracle of remote real time early aids detection and other supernatural wonders. Last Friday on the view, spirit
channeling was demonstrated. They received a memo from Turner. The woman said that Ted would not have fired Kathy Griffin....

Before anyone scoff, recall that bolsheviks sent a lot of bullets through brains by getting it's victims to utter that they did not renounce God, nor
respect their barbaric totalitarian 'power'. Millions upon millions were brutally assassinated. Pop culthistory ignores this holocaust. Why did the
Bolsheviks do this? Because to claim one is to deny the other. The concept of God has always been a gadfly to them, and will always be a target
especially in human form.

This will be done through laws and technology, technofascism, which first bans 'hate'
and eventually bans religion, all the while demanding subservience to the machine.
They will strike a world constitution which eliminates guns, right to self defense, speech, and surveils everything and all to the most minute detail,
because they can, in one fell swoop.

Les Misanthropes added that in order to combat the tear aspect, we should be allowed to communicate freely with no fear of new world globalist
consequences
of falling into the hatespeech net, and he is dead on with this.

This 'hatespeech' concept is the brainchild of zionism, imo, because by outlawing speech as to what one finds objectionable sufficiently to 'hate',
they are protecting the flanks of their world control machinery.
They are making themselves unassailable, in deed, word, and thought.

No one will be allowed to hate them, or even call them out, if no one is allowed to 'hate' anything at all. That is what they hope comes out of the
'co-exist' blender, when religion, or 'God' is added to the mix, like it or not. Chances are you are an athiest. But that doesn't diminish the
importance of what you speak of in terms of politics and world control.

It was brilliant. The three of you were brilliant, and cut to the heart of the matter.
Each of us have raised red flags with our thinking.
In the globalsit state, these red flags,
would be actionable.
Because at last, they can.

Your thread and Les Mis's astute observation have essentially enabled me to break away from the computer for the remainder of the day such that I can
garden, and pull weeds, and focus on the vibrations in the air which are
quite visible without acid's consent.

I see through them. So do you. So does Les Mis. And burd. I wish you were here. Thanks.

How is a military response automatically divide Muslims from the rest of us? Is your logic really so simple as "Isis wants us to attack them.
Therefore, we will do the opposite, not attack them, welcome them in, and shame anyone who has a problem with it. That will defeat them!"

No? I didn't say anything like that.

In the real world, things are messy and multiple things can be true that for political reasons, people like to pretend are contradictory. And more
often than not, there is not simple, straightforward answer.

ISIS wants a holy war. Right? Can we agree to that? As long as they are able to continue operating, the fact there is a military conflict will
continue to draw fighters to their cause. All they need to do is keep recruiting faster than we can kill them.

We have to keep fighting them (and we need to win) but at the same time, having a "fight" to fight draws more people looking for a fight into their
ranks. It's like being in quicksand. You can't not get out of the quicksand because eventually you'll sink and die but struggling draws you in
deeper.

I stand by the OP, people calling anyone racist or a coward that has any worry of Islamic extremist, or people whose first concern is not
stopping terror but not hurting Muslims feelings are exactly what Isis wants.

1. I don't believe that what you describe is reality. I'm concerned with stopping terror. I think most people are. According to what you're saying,
there's *somebody* who is calling everyone concerned with stopping terror racist cowards. Nobody has called me a racist coward. Has anyone called you
a racist coward? It's not "being concerned with terrorism" that is the problem, it's the muppets yammering Pamela Gellar s#.

2. Is your belief in this amorphorous "globalist agenda" so overwhelming that you can't see that openly attacking all Muslims is only playing into
ISIS's hand?

Let me give you some examples of what I'm talking about and you were right in this thread so I can only assume you saw this:

A U.S. congressman from Louisiana posted Sunday on Facebook that “all of Christendom” is at war with “Islamic horror” and all
“radicalized Islamic suspects” should be hunted and killed.

The free world... all of Christendom... is at war with Islamic horror.
Not one penny of American treasure should be granted to any nation who harbors these heathen animals. Not a single radicalized Islamic suspect should
be granted any measure of quarter. Their intended entry to the American homeland should be summarily denied. Every conceivable measure should be
engaged to hunt them down. Hunt them, identify them, and kill them. Kill them all. For the sake of all that is good and righteous. Kill them all.
-Captain Clay Higgins

That's a Republican US Congressman calling for a holy war. That's not exactly what ISIS wants? It is EXACTLY what ISIS wants.

How do you not acknowledge a difference between people who "are concerned about stopping terrorism" and the huge swath of people who are advocating
for a holy war?

Clay Higgins is playing right into ISIS's hand just like the folks I quoted.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.